A model is a simplified representation of some aspect of the world. In what ways may models help or hinder the search for knowledge?
The essence of the Q: There are a range of key words here - 'model', 'simplified representation', 'world', 'help', 'hinder' and of course 'knowledge'. If you remember back to the end of your first ever TOK session, we asked you to come back for the next session with a 'model' of knowledge. it could have been any two or three dimensional representation of knowledge; in other words, something that embodied either of the WoKs or AoKs. Some of your 'models' were things like an i-pod or mobile phone or an old photograph - your explanations, as we recall, were splendid. Some of you simply brought yourselves, which was a little lazy, but nevertheless cleverly done. Now try to think further about this analogy of a 'model', for that is the central aspect of the Q. You have to think of other words for 'model' depending on the perspective you're approaching knowledge. What word would an artist use? What about a scientist? A mathematician or historian? Do we have any 'models' in our search for finding answers to what we ought to do in ethical situations? Then you have to think critically about the words 'simplified representation' - this phrase brings in the issue of trust and truth: how far do our 'models' correspond to reality and how can we ensure that they do? Once you have answered these questions, you should be able to decide whether 'models' help or himnder in the search for knowledge.
Knowledge Issues: To what extent is imagination important in the search for knowledge? How far is the attempt to represent the world limited by our perceptions? In what ways can we ensure that our 'models' of the world are reliable? To what extent is language necessary in creating our models? How far is it true to say that there are some aspects of the world that defy representation or modelling? What happens when we accept a distorded model/representation of the world? Why do we need modelsrepresentations at all? How far do cultural issues interfere with the modelling process? How far are the models of the Sciences and Maths more reliable than those of other AoKs?
Approaches: Perhaps Maths and the Natural and Human Science are the AoKs in which modelling takes place the most. Mathematical equations, as you found out recently, explain alot about how the world works but in a way that we can hardly understand. Science, you also realised, never gives 'proof' of anything (at least not 'good' science), but instead produces 'evidence' to support certain hypotheses about the world. These hyptheses often turn out to be wild and outrageous or even wrong. Historians also attempt to model the past, don't they? How? And are these representations reliable? You can make an interesting case for the Arts, after all, 'modelling' is really something with which an artist is familiar. Finally, you might come up against a major problem when it comes to the Ethical issues of right or wrong: do we have a 'model' to which we can turn to decide the outcome of an ethical dilemma? Can you say to someone who asks you if she should go ahead with her abortion: 'Just a minute, here's a model of this situation I created earlier. It'll help you decide.'? Perhaps not. There is no template or guide to tell us how to behave in certain moral situatiosn, or is there?
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Question 6
“There are no absolute distinctions between what is true and what is false”. Discuss this claim.
The essence of the Q: There are three key words - 'absolute', 'true' and 'false' - though the question focuses you on your ideas about 'truth' in general. When thinking further about the question, you must focus on examples of situations (or subjects) in which the distinction between truth and falsity matters... A common sense approach might be to argue that there are no absloute boundaries or criteria to decide what is true. TOK students like to take the relativist position: you are entitled to your opinion and I, mine; truth is simply a matter of opinion. Surely, however, there are some truths that cannot be denied whatever you or I feel about them. Can you think of any? Try to link your answer to the various WoKs - which of these help you most in deciding truth from falsity? Remember: while each WoK has its benefits, you have to balance this by exploring their flaws too. So ask yourself whether you belive in relativism or absloutism, or whether there is any middle ground. Make a list of other criteria that help to distinguish between the truth and falsity of knowledge claims: 'justification', 'verification', 'falsification', 'reliability', 'testability', 'experiment', 'agreement of the majority', 'evidence'... Find examples that show how these work. Take 'evidence', for instance: what counts as 'good' evidence? How do we gather reliable evidence? How far can evidence mislead our jusdgments?
Knowledge Issues: How do we decide upon the best criteria for deciding what is true? To what extent are any truths certain? In what way does our perception of what is true change over time? How far are the grounds for distinguishing true knowledge claims from false ones fixed? Are there any absolute truths? Is the problem relativism a problem at all and if so, to what extent is it insurmountable?
Approaches: If you look at another post, ToK Prescribed Titles (2010): Question 1, you get another angle on this question. In a comment to this post, a reader suggested that we need three criteria to distinguish between knowledge claims that are true or false:
1. Facticity : how does a knowledge claim relate to reality — in what way, to what extent...?
2. Reliability : how does a knowledge claim show self-consistency and how consistently does it respond to testing and/or observation?
3. Utility : can a knowledge claim be applied or used in concrete form? Do we have the proximate means of applying concrete tests of reliability and/or validity to it?
Do you agree with these or would you like to see another set of criteria? Try using various knowledge claims against these criteria as part of your planning. These knowledge claims can come from a range of AoKs:
Natural Sciences: "There is no life on Mars."
Human Sciences: "Anti-social behaviour is more a product of our genetic coding than our environment."
History: "The fall of the Roman Empire was caused largely by the Romans themselves."
The Arts: "van Gogh's Sunflowers is the most outstanding example of Impressionist art."
Ethics: "The Government should make ID cards compulsory."
Mathematics: "Parallel lines never meet."
Devise some of your own, but don't lost sight of the main Q and the knowledge issues you create.
The essence of the Q: There are three key words - 'absolute', 'true' and 'false' - though the question focuses you on your ideas about 'truth' in general. When thinking further about the question, you must focus on examples of situations (or subjects) in which the distinction between truth and falsity matters... A common sense approach might be to argue that there are no absloute boundaries or criteria to decide what is true. TOK students like to take the relativist position: you are entitled to your opinion and I, mine; truth is simply a matter of opinion. Surely, however, there are some truths that cannot be denied whatever you or I feel about them. Can you think of any? Try to link your answer to the various WoKs - which of these help you most in deciding truth from falsity? Remember: while each WoK has its benefits, you have to balance this by exploring their flaws too. So ask yourself whether you belive in relativism or absloutism, or whether there is any middle ground. Make a list of other criteria that help to distinguish between the truth and falsity of knowledge claims: 'justification', 'verification', 'falsification', 'reliability', 'testability', 'experiment', 'agreement of the majority', 'evidence'... Find examples that show how these work. Take 'evidence', for instance: what counts as 'good' evidence? How do we gather reliable evidence? How far can evidence mislead our jusdgments?
Knowledge Issues: How do we decide upon the best criteria for deciding what is true? To what extent are any truths certain? In what way does our perception of what is true change over time? How far are the grounds for distinguishing true knowledge claims from false ones fixed? Are there any absolute truths? Is the problem relativism a problem at all and if so, to what extent is it insurmountable?
Approaches: If you look at another post, ToK Prescribed Titles (2010): Question 1, you get another angle on this question. In a comment to this post, a reader suggested that we need three criteria to distinguish between knowledge claims that are true or false:
1. Facticity : how does a knowledge claim relate to reality — in what way, to what extent...?
2. Reliability : how does a knowledge claim show self-consistency and how consistently does it respond to testing and/or observation?
3. Utility : can a knowledge claim be applied or used in concrete form? Do we have the proximate means of applying concrete tests of reliability and/or validity to it?
Do you agree with these or would you like to see another set of criteria? Try using various knowledge claims against these criteria as part of your planning. These knowledge claims can come from a range of AoKs:
Natural Sciences: "There is no life on Mars."
Human Sciences: "Anti-social behaviour is more a product of our genetic coding than our environment."
History: "The fall of the Roman Empire was caused largely by the Romans themselves."
The Arts: "van Gogh's Sunflowers is the most outstanding example of Impressionist art."
Ethics: "The Government should make ID cards compulsory."
Mathematics: "Parallel lines never meet."
Devise some of your own, but don't lost sight of the main Q and the knowledge issues you create.
Question 5
To what extent are the various areas of knowledge defined by their methodologies rather than their content?
The essence of the Q: The question asks for a focus on its two key terms: 'methodology' and 'content'. It's a perennial issue that often disentegrates into the cliched distinction between the Sciences and Arts whereby the Arts are often downgraded as being the 'soft option'. Why is this? Why do we assume that those AOKs (or subjects) which are defined by method are somehow more superior than those which are more defined by their subject matter or content? A question tailor-made for the Sciences and one or two other AOKs, perhaps Mathematics and History, though it could be argued that method is also important in the Arts. Try to limit yourself to 2-3 AOKs and write in a detailed manner about their 'methodologies'. Think about the advantages and disadvantages of each method in aquiring, using knowledge and expanding knowledge. Think also about how each method changes over time; about the conditions required for such changes to take place. Avoid simply agreeing with the terms of the question. Reflect on the idea that while there are many Ethical theories to guide our behaviour, these are not really 'methods'; but this doesn't mean that Ethics is defined by its content.
Knowledge Issues: How do we know that a method works? What is the relationship between method and content? How far is method more important than content? What do we mean by the phrase 'there is method in the madness'? To what extent does the content of knowledge depend on method? In what ways do the imperfections of a method reduce the impact of knowledge? In what ways do reason and perception define scientific methodologies? How far does emotion define the content of the Arts and Ethics? What role has language to play in the methodologies of the AOKs?
Approaches:
Natural Sciences: Another question which demands analysis of the scientific method. Look at the inductive approach and the falsification approach. What are the benefits and problems of each? What is the 'content' of the natural Sciences? Data? Observations? Truth?
Human Sciences: The 'content' of the Human Sciences is to put it simply, human behaviour. How 'scientific' are the methods used to explain this behaviour in different fields such as economics and psychology? How far do these methods yield coherent explanations?
Mathematics: Mathematicians work according to certain rules of logic and reason to derive answers and explanation. The content of mathematical knowledge is arguably the most abstract and complex of all the AOKs which always begs the question: to what extent is this content applicable to the world? While we may struggle to comprehend Mathematical formulae in their purest form, we should never forget that they are fundamental to the invention of some of the items that we have come to rely on so much.
History: Is there such a thing as a historical 'method'? If there were, presumably historians would disagree as to how it should be used. Perhaps it's more reasonable to suggest that there is no single method to reconstruct the past, but that there are certain rules or protocols that a historian must follow when attempting to do this work. The rules provide a framwork for approaching the content of history - primary and secondary sources - without contraining the historian to 'prove' or 'falsify' a hypothesis. What would these 'rules' look like?
Arts: the content of the Arts is wide-ranging and various. When we experience art, we assume that what matters most is the subject matter and how accurately this represents the world of human experience. When we judge a piece of art, we take into account how it's made, the method involved, but does this always have an impact on our aesthetic experience of an art work? Perhaps the Arts are the only AOK in which we strive for a balance between method and content.
Ethics: It has been suggested above that Ethics is the only AOK which doesn't depend on methodology and even the theories devised to guide our ehtical behaviour can never provide anything more than guidelines. If the content of Ethics is moral knowledge, we're faced with some essential questions: where does this come from? How flexible and effective are our Ethical theories in applying their principles to real life sitautions?
The essence of the Q: The question asks for a focus on its two key terms: 'methodology' and 'content'. It's a perennial issue that often disentegrates into the cliched distinction between the Sciences and Arts whereby the Arts are often downgraded as being the 'soft option'. Why is this? Why do we assume that those AOKs (or subjects) which are defined by method are somehow more superior than those which are more defined by their subject matter or content? A question tailor-made for the Sciences and one or two other AOKs, perhaps Mathematics and History, though it could be argued that method is also important in the Arts. Try to limit yourself to 2-3 AOKs and write in a detailed manner about their 'methodologies'. Think about the advantages and disadvantages of each method in aquiring, using knowledge and expanding knowledge. Think also about how each method changes over time; about the conditions required for such changes to take place. Avoid simply agreeing with the terms of the question. Reflect on the idea that while there are many Ethical theories to guide our behaviour, these are not really 'methods'; but this doesn't mean that Ethics is defined by its content.
Knowledge Issues: How do we know that a method works? What is the relationship between method and content? How far is method more important than content? What do we mean by the phrase 'there is method in the madness'? To what extent does the content of knowledge depend on method? In what ways do the imperfections of a method reduce the impact of knowledge? In what ways do reason and perception define scientific methodologies? How far does emotion define the content of the Arts and Ethics? What role has language to play in the methodologies of the AOKs?
Approaches:
Natural Sciences: Another question which demands analysis of the scientific method. Look at the inductive approach and the falsification approach. What are the benefits and problems of each? What is the 'content' of the natural Sciences? Data? Observations? Truth?
Human Sciences: The 'content' of the Human Sciences is to put it simply, human behaviour. How 'scientific' are the methods used to explain this behaviour in different fields such as economics and psychology? How far do these methods yield coherent explanations?
Mathematics: Mathematicians work according to certain rules of logic and reason to derive answers and explanation. The content of mathematical knowledge is arguably the most abstract and complex of all the AOKs which always begs the question: to what extent is this content applicable to the world? While we may struggle to comprehend Mathematical formulae in their purest form, we should never forget that they are fundamental to the invention of some of the items that we have come to rely on so much.
History: Is there such a thing as a historical 'method'? If there were, presumably historians would disagree as to how it should be used. Perhaps it's more reasonable to suggest that there is no single method to reconstruct the past, but that there are certain rules or protocols that a historian must follow when attempting to do this work. The rules provide a framwork for approaching the content of history - primary and secondary sources - without contraining the historian to 'prove' or 'falsify' a hypothesis. What would these 'rules' look like?
Arts: the content of the Arts is wide-ranging and various. When we experience art, we assume that what matters most is the subject matter and how accurately this represents the world of human experience. When we judge a piece of art, we take into account how it's made, the method involved, but does this always have an impact on our aesthetic experience of an art work? Perhaps the Arts are the only AOK in which we strive for a balance between method and content.
Ethics: It has been suggested above that Ethics is the only AOK which doesn't depend on methodology and even the theories devised to guide our ehtical behaviour can never provide anything more than guidelines. If the content of Ethics is moral knowledge, we're faced with some essential questions: where does this come from? How flexible and effective are our Ethical theories in applying their principles to real life sitautions?
Question 4
To what extent do we need evidence to support our beliefs in different areas of knowledge?
The Essence of the Q: You'll no doubt fix yourselves on three key words in the Q - 'evidence', 'support' and 'beliefs' - and rightly so. These are fundamental words in TOK and provide the foundation of all our analyses of knowledge and how it works in our world. Before we explore the Q, remember that the choice of AOKs to limit your answer is up to you - choose a minimum of three and a maximum of four, depending on your word count. The main job of the essay is to balance your approach to the issue of 'evidence'. Evidence gives us a reason to believe something; it gives us a range of facts on which to base our beliefs; evidence may be presented as a way of testing our beliefs. Evidence might also give us good reason to state our beliefs in the form of knowledge. We'd like to think that all our beliefs have firm, rational grounds, but is it always like this? We hold uncountable beliefs on a range of things, some are strongly held beliefs, some are weakly held ones. Some beliefs might be uncomfortable, some are prejudiced; some might be crazy and irrational and others might be used as a basis of your life. Is it the lack of evidence that makes them weak or irrational? Is it your upbringing that makes some of your beliefs crazy? When you explore each AOK, ask yourself what counts as evidence in that field. For example, would you base a Medical decision on a 'gut feeling' about a patient's condition? You will need to explore how the different WOKs help or hinder the search for, and use of, evidence and thereby question the status of our beliefs. You'll also need to explore how the different perceptive filters affect our beliefs: personal bias and prejudice have a part in supporting our beliefs, as well as cultural differences. Think about this word 'support': it is linked to 'justify', 'verify', 'falsify' and by analogy to the words 'underpin', 'foundation' and 'grounds'. If we take away the need for evidence, do we lose the grounds on which our beliefs are held? Where would it leave us if we had no evidence or grounds for our beliefs?
Knowledge Issues: To what extent must our beliefs be based on rational grounds? How far does evidence make our beliefs certain? How do we prevent evidence from being misused? In what ways do we gather evidence? How far are our beliefs shaped by cultural/personal circumstances? How do we keep an open-mind when considering supporting evidence? To what extent do our preconceptions, assumptions and biases drive our conclusions and shape the beliefs we hold?
Approaches: Remember Andy Fletcher's statement about Natural Sciences? Science has nothing to do with 'proof' and everything to do with 'evidence'. What did he mean by this? Can we extend this statement to ALL the AOKs? Surely not Mathematics which uses general axioms from which to derieve or prove by logical means the consistency of a theorum. Are all such Mathematical theorums logically consistent? Not according to Mr. Gödel. Now, you know that scientists often require mathematics to underpin their theories, but to what extent can a mathematical theorum be counted as evidence to support that theory? Historical evidence can be a minefield: the same evidence can often be used to support two different beliefs about the same historical event. Can you think of examples where this happens? How does it happen? How can we guard against it? Human Scientists often use surveys or polls or the personal testimony of people as evidence to support their theories. Think of experiments in psychology, anthropology and economics for examples and ask yourselves if this way of generating statistical evidence is feasible and open to abuse. This leaves Ethics and The Arts, perhaps the most subjective of AOKs. It's usually assumed that Ethical and Artistic issues are simply 'a matter of opinion'. Is this strictly true? Do we not need to know all the facts surrounding an Ethical problem in order to decide what to do? We might not make the right decision, but we nevertheless need all the evidence at hand to be able to choose a course of action. Where does this leave The Arts? Is this the only AOK which can do away with the need for evidence? You're allowed your opinion about Beethoven's Ninth Symphony and I'm allowed mine. But what do we base our opinions on? What we like? How we feel? Our taste? And are any of these things really 'evidence'?
The Essence of the Q: You'll no doubt fix yourselves on three key words in the Q - 'evidence', 'support' and 'beliefs' - and rightly so. These are fundamental words in TOK and provide the foundation of all our analyses of knowledge and how it works in our world. Before we explore the Q, remember that the choice of AOKs to limit your answer is up to you - choose a minimum of three and a maximum of four, depending on your word count. The main job of the essay is to balance your approach to the issue of 'evidence'. Evidence gives us a reason to believe something; it gives us a range of facts on which to base our beliefs; evidence may be presented as a way of testing our beliefs. Evidence might also give us good reason to state our beliefs in the form of knowledge. We'd like to think that all our beliefs have firm, rational grounds, but is it always like this? We hold uncountable beliefs on a range of things, some are strongly held beliefs, some are weakly held ones. Some beliefs might be uncomfortable, some are prejudiced; some might be crazy and irrational and others might be used as a basis of your life. Is it the lack of evidence that makes them weak or irrational? Is it your upbringing that makes some of your beliefs crazy? When you explore each AOK, ask yourself what counts as evidence in that field. For example, would you base a Medical decision on a 'gut feeling' about a patient's condition? You will need to explore how the different WOKs help or hinder the search for, and use of, evidence and thereby question the status of our beliefs. You'll also need to explore how the different perceptive filters affect our beliefs: personal bias and prejudice have a part in supporting our beliefs, as well as cultural differences. Think about this word 'support': it is linked to 'justify', 'verify', 'falsify' and by analogy to the words 'underpin', 'foundation' and 'grounds'. If we take away the need for evidence, do we lose the grounds on which our beliefs are held? Where would it leave us if we had no evidence or grounds for our beliefs?
Knowledge Issues: To what extent must our beliefs be based on rational grounds? How far does evidence make our beliefs certain? How do we prevent evidence from being misused? In what ways do we gather evidence? How far are our beliefs shaped by cultural/personal circumstances? How do we keep an open-mind when considering supporting evidence? To what extent do our preconceptions, assumptions and biases drive our conclusions and shape the beliefs we hold?
Approaches: Remember Andy Fletcher's statement about Natural Sciences? Science has nothing to do with 'proof' and everything to do with 'evidence'. What did he mean by this? Can we extend this statement to ALL the AOKs? Surely not Mathematics which uses general axioms from which to derieve or prove by logical means the consistency of a theorum. Are all such Mathematical theorums logically consistent? Not according to Mr. Gödel. Now, you know that scientists often require mathematics to underpin their theories, but to what extent can a mathematical theorum be counted as evidence to support that theory? Historical evidence can be a minefield: the same evidence can often be used to support two different beliefs about the same historical event. Can you think of examples where this happens? How does it happen? How can we guard against it? Human Scientists often use surveys or polls or the personal testimony of people as evidence to support their theories. Think of experiments in psychology, anthropology and economics for examples and ask yourselves if this way of generating statistical evidence is feasible and open to abuse. This leaves Ethics and The Arts, perhaps the most subjective of AOKs. It's usually assumed that Ethical and Artistic issues are simply 'a matter of opinion'. Is this strictly true? Do we not need to know all the facts surrounding an Ethical problem in order to decide what to do? We might not make the right decision, but we nevertheless need all the evidence at hand to be able to choose a course of action. Where does this leave The Arts? Is this the only AOK which can do away with the need for evidence? You're allowed your opinion about Beethoven's Ninth Symphony and I'm allowed mine. But what do we base our opinions on? What we like? How we feel? Our taste? And are any of these things really 'evidence'?
Question 3
“Doubt is the key to knowledge” (Persian Proverb). To what extent is this true in two areas of knowledge?
The essence of the Q: this is a deceptively simple question and may lead you into quite a technical discussion of philosophical scepticism - this is fine if you're well-versed in the miasma of Descartes' 'cogito ergo sum' and Hume's theory of casuation, for instance, but if not, then try to keep things simple. First of all, reflect on the associations of 'key': it's a powerful metaphor for knowledge. Next, think carefully about 'doubt' - what is the consequence of not being over-hasty in believing what you see and what you're told? Is doubt a method or a state of mind? Is it active or passive? Doubting must surely be linked to questioning and thereby curiosity, both of which are great ways of living. And yet life might become extremely intense and you might become a social pariah if you question everyone and everything! So then place the question in the context of different AoKs and think about how doubt might yield or hinder knowledge in these fields. At some point in your reflections, you'll have to consider how doubt helps or hinders you into getting to the truth of things; that is, gives you subjective or objective knowledge, certainty. You may also wish to compare the Persian proverb with Socrates' assertion that one can only know that one doesn't really know much - for those of you with a philosophical background, your discussion could develop into an exploration of the effectiveness of the method of dialectic.
Knowledge issues: to what extent is doubt a methodological necessity in the Sciences? What is the relationship between doubt and truth? How far is doubt a reliable gauge for knowing something? In what ways does doubt involve rational thinking? What part does perception and emotion play in doubt? Is anything certain? How far can we justify the urge to question or doubt everything? What is the relationship between doubt and evidence?
Approaches:
Natural Sciences: Perhaps the easiest of the AoKs to choose for this Q since doubt is built into the scientific method. Sometimes we have to doubt the efficacy (or even the ethics) of the natural sciences. Think of the side effects of many of the inventions based on science and technology.
Human Sciences: You could discuss the efficacy of qualitative and quantitive data or statistics that human scientists produce to support their theories.
Mathematics: Surely no place for doubt here. Those of you well-versed in maths and geometry will know, however, that doubt played a key part in the discovery of non-Euclidian geometry which is essential for navigating the planet as well as for space travel.
Arts: This would be a good contrast to the Natural Sciences. Artistic doubt, you might argue, manifests itself in a dissatisfaction with the world which is the springboard for creativity. We also doubt judgments about art works which has great implications on the nature of artistic knowledge.
History: What does historical doubt look like? Is it the same as denial? For example, we know about people who deny the holocaust ever happened (if you use this example, please avoid the cliches!), but you'd need to explain how and why this state of affairs might arise. On what grounds might you doubt a historian's interpretation of a particular period of history?
Ethics: If you believe that there are no absolute ethical principles, then Ethics is fraught with doubts. On the other hand, if you believe in God as the giver of morals, does this mean that you'll be free from doubt? There are as many examples in sacred books as well as in the lives of non-believers that suggest doubt often plagues us in situations of moral extremity: we do not always know what is the right thing to do - theories and guidelines might help to clarify things, but may not help to make a decision.
The essence of the Q: this is a deceptively simple question and may lead you into quite a technical discussion of philosophical scepticism - this is fine if you're well-versed in the miasma of Descartes' 'cogito ergo sum' and Hume's theory of casuation, for instance, but if not, then try to keep things simple. First of all, reflect on the associations of 'key': it's a powerful metaphor for knowledge. Next, think carefully about 'doubt' - what is the consequence of not being over-hasty in believing what you see and what you're told? Is doubt a method or a state of mind? Is it active or passive? Doubting must surely be linked to questioning and thereby curiosity, both of which are great ways of living. And yet life might become extremely intense and you might become a social pariah if you question everyone and everything! So then place the question in the context of different AoKs and think about how doubt might yield or hinder knowledge in these fields. At some point in your reflections, you'll have to consider how doubt helps or hinders you into getting to the truth of things; that is, gives you subjective or objective knowledge, certainty. You may also wish to compare the Persian proverb with Socrates' assertion that one can only know that one doesn't really know much - for those of you with a philosophical background, your discussion could develop into an exploration of the effectiveness of the method of dialectic.
Knowledge issues: to what extent is doubt a methodological necessity in the Sciences? What is the relationship between doubt and truth? How far is doubt a reliable gauge for knowing something? In what ways does doubt involve rational thinking? What part does perception and emotion play in doubt? Is anything certain? How far can we justify the urge to question or doubt everything? What is the relationship between doubt and evidence?
Approaches:
Natural Sciences: Perhaps the easiest of the AoKs to choose for this Q since doubt is built into the scientific method. Sometimes we have to doubt the efficacy (or even the ethics) of the natural sciences. Think of the side effects of many of the inventions based on science and technology.
Human Sciences: You could discuss the efficacy of qualitative and quantitive data or statistics that human scientists produce to support their theories.
Mathematics: Surely no place for doubt here. Those of you well-versed in maths and geometry will know, however, that doubt played a key part in the discovery of non-Euclidian geometry which is essential for navigating the planet as well as for space travel.
Arts: This would be a good contrast to the Natural Sciences. Artistic doubt, you might argue, manifests itself in a dissatisfaction with the world which is the springboard for creativity. We also doubt judgments about art works which has great implications on the nature of artistic knowledge.
History: What does historical doubt look like? Is it the same as denial? For example, we know about people who deny the holocaust ever happened (if you use this example, please avoid the cliches!), but you'd need to explain how and why this state of affairs might arise. On what grounds might you doubt a historian's interpretation of a particular period of history?
Ethics: If you believe that there are no absolute ethical principles, then Ethics is fraught with doubts. On the other hand, if you believe in God as the giver of morals, does this mean that you'll be free from doubt? There are as many examples in sacred books as well as in the lives of non-believers that suggest doubt often plagues us in situations of moral extremity: we do not always know what is the right thing to do - theories and guidelines might help to clarify things, but may not help to make a decision.
Question 2
How important are the opinions of experts in the search for knowledge?
The essence of the Q: We all have opinions and, most of us would agree, are entitled to have them and to express them. But how does this help or hinder our search for knowledge? Firstly, reflect on the idea of the 'expert' - this is an authority figure whom we commonly trust and rely on to advise, guide and give us an insight into truth. Who is the ultimate authority figure? Next, you'll have to think about the contrast between 'opinions' and 'knowledge' and how we make the move from the former to the latter. Thirdly, you'll have to consider how people become experts or authorities in the first place. Don't be mislead by the phrasing of the Q and only focus on the idea of 'opinions' - is it expert opinion that influences our search for knowledge or expert knowledge or skills or understanding? What are expert opinions grounded on? Make a profile of different experts in different fields as part of a plan for the essay and observe what similarities and differences you find. We look to, and rely on, experts in all fields of knowledge. Why? Is it enough to say we 'know' something based on what the experts tell us? What more is needed to justify our knowledge claims? Even the experts can be biased or sometimes wrong. We all make mistakes. Try to reflect also on whether it's possible that non-experts can also somehow influence the search for knowledge. What is it that a non-expert brings in the search for knowledge? Essentially, keep at the front of your mind the question: what do we need in order to acquire knowledge? The answer is EVIDENCE. What kind of evidence do experts put forward in the search for knowledge? What gives this evidence its force?
Knowledge Issues: What role do opinions play in the acuisition of knowledge? To what extent is an expert's opinion reliable? How far are we right to trust an expert's opinions? In what ways is the search for knowledge enhanced by experts? And prevented? What are the limitations of an expert's opinions? How do you acquire expertise in a particular field of knowledge? To what extent is expert knowledge infallible? How far does an expert's language confuse (or improve) our search for knowledge? To what extent are the opinions of experts immune to cultural bias and conflict? In what ways do experts transcend bias and conflict?
Approaches: As usual, try to limit yourselfves to 3-4 different AOKs when approaching the KIs you've identified.
Mathematics: You'd think that expert Mathematicians had no time for 'opinions' - maths prides itself on logic and reason and the ability to overcome the influence of personal emotion or opinion in its processes. Does opinion play any part in the search for Mathematical knowledge?
Natural Sciences: You could argue that a scientific hypothesis is merely an 'opinion' until the scientist has found evidence to support the hypothesis. Or you could reflect on the more accepted version of the scientific method as a process of 'falsification'.
Human Sciences: This AOK is a mine of experts in all kinds of fields from politics to psychology and economics to sociology. What kind of evidence do they provide to support their opinions and why do we trust them? Are certain experts more trustworthy than others? Why?
History: Historical experts seem to thrive on the conflicts between their opinions about events in their search for knowledge and better understanding of the past. The same event can attract vastly different opinions. Can this have a detrimental effect on our search for knowledge?
Arts: What do the experts really know about art? If, as most people assume, the Arts are the most subject of the AOKs, then surely an expert's opinion counts no more than a non-expert's when judging whether or not a work of art is good. Does an expert's opinion give us a better insight into the quality of art works? How so?
Ethics: Are there any experts in this field? Perhaps it depends on the nature of the problem. We might go to a legal expert if we had a moral problem regarding the law; a medical expert if we had a moral dilemma relating to health; and so on. Why do we so easily rely on these experts? Is it because we don't trust ourselves; we need an authority figure to show us the way?
The essence of the Q: We all have opinions and, most of us would agree, are entitled to have them and to express them. But how does this help or hinder our search for knowledge? Firstly, reflect on the idea of the 'expert' - this is an authority figure whom we commonly trust and rely on to advise, guide and give us an insight into truth. Who is the ultimate authority figure? Next, you'll have to think about the contrast between 'opinions' and 'knowledge' and how we make the move from the former to the latter. Thirdly, you'll have to consider how people become experts or authorities in the first place. Don't be mislead by the phrasing of the Q and only focus on the idea of 'opinions' - is it expert opinion that influences our search for knowledge or expert knowledge or skills or understanding? What are expert opinions grounded on? Make a profile of different experts in different fields as part of a plan for the essay and observe what similarities and differences you find. We look to, and rely on, experts in all fields of knowledge. Why? Is it enough to say we 'know' something based on what the experts tell us? What more is needed to justify our knowledge claims? Even the experts can be biased or sometimes wrong. We all make mistakes. Try to reflect also on whether it's possible that non-experts can also somehow influence the search for knowledge. What is it that a non-expert brings in the search for knowledge? Essentially, keep at the front of your mind the question: what do we need in order to acquire knowledge? The answer is EVIDENCE. What kind of evidence do experts put forward in the search for knowledge? What gives this evidence its force?
Knowledge Issues: What role do opinions play in the acuisition of knowledge? To what extent is an expert's opinion reliable? How far are we right to trust an expert's opinions? In what ways is the search for knowledge enhanced by experts? And prevented? What are the limitations of an expert's opinions? How do you acquire expertise in a particular field of knowledge? To what extent is expert knowledge infallible? How far does an expert's language confuse (or improve) our search for knowledge? To what extent are the opinions of experts immune to cultural bias and conflict? In what ways do experts transcend bias and conflict?
Approaches: As usual, try to limit yourselfves to 3-4 different AOKs when approaching the KIs you've identified.
Mathematics: You'd think that expert Mathematicians had no time for 'opinions' - maths prides itself on logic and reason and the ability to overcome the influence of personal emotion or opinion in its processes. Does opinion play any part in the search for Mathematical knowledge?
Natural Sciences: You could argue that a scientific hypothesis is merely an 'opinion' until the scientist has found evidence to support the hypothesis. Or you could reflect on the more accepted version of the scientific method as a process of 'falsification'.
Human Sciences: This AOK is a mine of experts in all kinds of fields from politics to psychology and economics to sociology. What kind of evidence do they provide to support their opinions and why do we trust them? Are certain experts more trustworthy than others? Why?
History: Historical experts seem to thrive on the conflicts between their opinions about events in their search for knowledge and better understanding of the past. The same event can attract vastly different opinions. Can this have a detrimental effect on our search for knowledge?
Arts: What do the experts really know about art? If, as most people assume, the Arts are the most subject of the AOKs, then surely an expert's opinion counts no more than a non-expert's when judging whether or not a work of art is good. Does an expert's opinion give us a better insight into the quality of art works? How so?
Ethics: Are there any experts in this field? Perhaps it depends on the nature of the problem. We might go to a legal expert if we had a moral problem regarding the law; a medical expert if we had a moral dilemma relating to health; and so on. Why do we so easily rely on these experts? Is it because we don't trust ourselves; we need an authority figure to show us the way?
Question 1
Consider the extent to which knowledge issues in ethics are similar to those in at least one other area of knowledge.
The essence of the Q: You'll have to get to grips with what KIs are to answer this Q - make sure you check all the posts relating to this concept. Even though this Q focalises you on 'similarities', the exploration of differences is implied (you must always aim to provide a balanced approach). While the Q also limists you to Ethics as a main approach, we recommend that you choose at least 2-3 other AOKs depending on the words you have left. Please do not start by defining your understanding of of the concept of 'knowledge issues'. You know that knowledge is a great force in our lives. You know that we gain knowledge through the four WOKs but that these can either help or hinder the acquisition of knowledge. You know also that knowledge itself can be used for purposes both beneficial and detrimental to humanity; knowing something can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on the circumstances. Your job in this Q is to imagine or find real life ethical circumstances and explain how the WOKs help or hinder us in knowing what to do. Compare these circumstances to say Historical, Artistic, Mathematical, Psychological (Human Sciences) or Biological (Natural Sciences) - choose any 2-3 from the list. Think about scenarios where the other AOKs involve an Ethical dimension.
Knowledge Issues: To what extent are KIs in Ethics more controvertial than KIs in other AOKs? In what ways are KIs in Ethics more subjective than KIs in other AOKs? How far is the notion of truth irrelevant to KIs in Ethics? To what extent do KIs in Ethics rely on evidence? How far is Ethcial knowledge useful in other AOKs? How do we maintain an open-mind when it comes to Ethical KIs?
Approaches: Remember that KIs in Ethical situations require us to decide the right course of action to take. Can we always make a right decision? You should be able to find (or think up) many situations in which making a right decision can be extremely difficult, if not nigh on impossible. What does this tell us about Ethical knowledge? How does this differ from the Natural Sciences? Think of a scientific experiment and explore how we use the data of these experiements to acquire knowledge about the world by means of general theories and laws. Do our theories always explain the facts clearly? Move on and think about how artists represent the world in their work. Controvertial modern artists stretch the boundaries of art so that they border on Ethics: should we allow animals to be pickled and displayed in an art gallery? Are the ways in which we decide what is good and bad art the same as how we decide what is a good or bad action? Mathematical KIs seem far away from Ethical ones. You might argue that Mathematical knowledge can never help us decide Ethical questions. How does knowing a solution to a quadratic equation ever help us decide whether or not to turn off the life support machine to which a loved family memeber is attached? Historians reconstruct the past and are faced by a great many problems relating to the sources they use. How do they decide which sources are relevant and which aren't? Again, doesn't their choice of sources border on ethical concerns? So you might end up arguing that while the KIs of Ethics might be very different in Ethics, nearly all the AOKs sometimes involve an Ethical dimension when it comes to the acuisiton and use of knowledge.
The essence of the Q: You'll have to get to grips with what KIs are to answer this Q - make sure you check all the posts relating to this concept. Even though this Q focalises you on 'similarities', the exploration of differences is implied (you must always aim to provide a balanced approach). While the Q also limists you to Ethics as a main approach, we recommend that you choose at least 2-3 other AOKs depending on the words you have left. Please do not start by defining your understanding of of the concept of 'knowledge issues'. You know that knowledge is a great force in our lives. You know that we gain knowledge through the four WOKs but that these can either help or hinder the acquisition of knowledge. You know also that knowledge itself can be used for purposes both beneficial and detrimental to humanity; knowing something can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on the circumstances. Your job in this Q is to imagine or find real life ethical circumstances and explain how the WOKs help or hinder us in knowing what to do. Compare these circumstances to say Historical, Artistic, Mathematical, Psychological (Human Sciences) or Biological (Natural Sciences) - choose any 2-3 from the list. Think about scenarios where the other AOKs involve an Ethical dimension.
Knowledge Issues: To what extent are KIs in Ethics more controvertial than KIs in other AOKs? In what ways are KIs in Ethics more subjective than KIs in other AOKs? How far is the notion of truth irrelevant to KIs in Ethics? To what extent do KIs in Ethics rely on evidence? How far is Ethcial knowledge useful in other AOKs? How do we maintain an open-mind when it comes to Ethical KIs?
Approaches: Remember that KIs in Ethical situations require us to decide the right course of action to take. Can we always make a right decision? You should be able to find (or think up) many situations in which making a right decision can be extremely difficult, if not nigh on impossible. What does this tell us about Ethical knowledge? How does this differ from the Natural Sciences? Think of a scientific experiment and explore how we use the data of these experiements to acquire knowledge about the world by means of general theories and laws. Do our theories always explain the facts clearly? Move on and think about how artists represent the world in their work. Controvertial modern artists stretch the boundaries of art so that they border on Ethics: should we allow animals to be pickled and displayed in an art gallery? Are the ways in which we decide what is good and bad art the same as how we decide what is a good or bad action? Mathematical KIs seem far away from Ethical ones. You might argue that Mathematical knowledge can never help us decide Ethical questions. How does knowing a solution to a quadratic equation ever help us decide whether or not to turn off the life support machine to which a loved family memeber is attached? Historians reconstruct the past and are faced by a great many problems relating to the sources they use. How do they decide which sources are relevant and which aren't? Again, doesn't their choice of sources border on ethical concerns? So you might end up arguing that while the KIs of Ethics might be very different in Ethics, nearly all the AOKs sometimes involve an Ethical dimension when it comes to the acuisiton and use of knowledge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)